“The Prisoner” Is Back In His Prison . . . Or Is He?

by Thomas M. Pender

In 1967, the BBC gave the world one of its most original television concepts: The Prisoner, created by and starring Patrick McGoohan.  He portrayed a man who awakens in an idyllic resort-like Village with no memory of how he arrived there.  He quickly learns that he is now merely “Number 6” (or simply “6”) and that the Village is merely an impressive-looking prison.  The storyline of the 17-episode series involved the prisoner learning why he was brought to the Village, who is running the Village, and how to escape the Village.  After all, it is human nature to want out of even a gilded cage.

In 2009, the cable network AMC aired a re-imagining of this classic program, starring Jim (The Passion of the Christ) Caviezel in the title role.  With the same name, and the same basic concept, the new show went in many different directions than the first, and became its own unique show.  It is not a perfect show, but it is an interesting one, whether you have seen its predecessor or not.

In addition to the overall concept, what the shows have in common include ominous white bubbles that appear and overwhelm any prisoner who attempts escape, the enigmatic overseer of the prison who is called “2” (leading to the subtext question “Who or what is 1?”), and the catchphrase “I’ll be seeing you.”  How the shows differ include the concept detail of physical vs. metaphysical location (any further detail would be a spoiler), and the presence of women together with the establishment of families.  Neither show is better or worse in these differences, but each can be viewed as a separate device to entertain and intrigue the audience, each with equal success.

My disappointments with the new version are simply those that the creators did not fully think out, or at least explain to the audience.  Since the new series involved only six episodes to its predecessor’s 17, the flow of the story always seems a bit rushed.  Most glaringly, in the first episode, the hero protests being referred to as “6” only a few times, then suddenly seems rather accepting of his new designation.  Also, the numbering system in the new version is very awkward, and never gets explained.  There are apparently many more prisoners in the 2009 show, as number reach into the four-digit range, but some are not simple numbers.  For example, 2’s son is called 11-12.  Why the dash?  Since he is the only offspring of 2, the number 2-1 would make sense, but 11-12 has no basis.  The biggest question is this: With so many occupants, presumably numbered as they are delivered to the Village, why is the show’s latest occupant called “6”?  Did the original 6 die, and all late residents are replaced in the numerical system?  It’s been a few years since I watched the 1967 show, but I seem to remember at least a discussion of why 6 was given that number.  Here, there isn’t even the question.

Personally, I found Caviezel’s acting range a great blessing for the show.  With the original, I was often frustrated with McGoohan’s inability to express even a single emotion.  Whether or not that opinion is a universal, the one element of the new incarnation that all fans of the original will love is simply this: There is a logical finale to the show.  The original notoriously ended abruptly, with an incredibly disappointing plot end that pretty much assumed every viewer was stupid, which of course enraged fans.  In this sense, the new Prisoner is a bit of an apology . . . and a gift.